And to finish the general observations concerning economic plundering, I beg the Tribunal’s permission to give a few explanations from the legal point of view. That is the subject of Chapter 5 of this first part.
From a legal point of view it is not contestable that organized plundering of the countries invaded by Germany is prohibited by the International Hague Convention, signed by Germany and deliberately violated by her, even though her leaders never failed to invoke this Convention every time they tried to benefit by it.
Section III of the Hague Convention, entitled “The Military Authority over the Territories of the Enemy State,” relates to economic questions. These clauses are very clear and need not be discussed. If the Tribunal will allow me to recall them in reading, here is Section III of the Hague Convention which I put into the document book as Document Number RF-114, and which is entitled, “The Military Authority over the Territories of the Enemy State”:
“Article 42: A territory is considered occupied when it is placed actually under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territories where this authority has been established and can be exercised.
“Article 43: The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter. . .”
THE PRESIDENT: I think we can take judicial notice of these articles of the Convention.
M. GERTHOFFER: I shall therefore not read this article, since the Tribunal knows the Convention, and shall simply limit myself to certain juridical remarks.
These texts of the Hague Convention show in a very clear way that the Germans could seize in occupied countries only what was necessary for the maintenance of troops indispensable in the occupation of the territories. All items which were levied beyond these limits were in violation of the texts which you know, and consequently these acts were acts of plundering.
Counsel for the Defense may contend that all these prescriptions must be put aside, because Germany had set herself the goal of continuing the war against Britain, the U.S.S.R., and the United States of America. The Defense may claim that, because of this, Germany was in a state of need and had to counter the prescriptions of the Hague Convention, trying to interpret the Article 23 G as allowing destruction or seizure even of private property.